Why register? ...To Enhance Your Experience
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: SAFER Question

  1. #1
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Espyville Pa
    Posts
    27

    Default SAFER Question

    If awarded a SAFER for replacing 2 Fulltime FF's (one lost due to injury, one lost due to death), can those positions be filled by promoting P/T FF's to those vacancies or do they have to be "new hires".


  2. #2
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,732

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NSFD1710 View Post
    If awarded a SAFER for replacing 2 Fulltime FF's (one lost due to injury, one lost due to death), can those positions be filled by promoting P/T FF's to those vacancies or do they have to be "new hires".
    There should be no issue with promoting the PT FF's to the full time positions as long as you will maintain the staffing levels that you stated in the grant. In other words, if the PT FF's were part of the staffing levels then you would have to fill those positions if moved to full time.

  3. #3
    Forum Member islandfire03's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    2,546

    Talking

    Maybe it's just me: But if I understand what your asking is:

    Can you apply for SAFER funding to pay for two positions that already exist, but are now vacant due to injury/death of the previous employees.

    If that is so has the funding for those positions been eliminated , or used for something else?
    Have the part timers been working full time to fill the shifts for these positions?
    How are the part timers being classified currently?


    Personally I'm thinking No on safer from the scenario given above in your thread.

  4. #4
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Espyville Pa
    Posts
    27

    Default

    Thanks Onebugle.



    islandfire03,

    The two F/T positions are vacant already, the part timers ARE filling in those shifts but are limited to 39 hrs per week, plus all P/T'ers have other jobs so they are no always available. SO....... The Fulltime FF's are still filling some of those positions also. Therefore LOTS of OverTime for them but also they get stuck working 72 straight hours. The P/t'ers are classified as Part Time Relief Fire Fighters, They can only fill in those vacant positions and can't displace F/T staff.

    The funding has been cut for those two FT positions and just moved to pay P/T wages and the OT for FT'ers.

    By moving two P/T'ers up it would cut out most of the OT and also those 72 hr shifts for the present F/t'ers. Although it would not "increase" our present staffing it would "improve" the staffing.
    Last edited by NSFD1710; 02-20-2011 at 01:53 PM.

  5. #5
    Forum Member islandfire03's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    2,546

    Talking

    Quote Originally Posted by NSFD1710 View Post
    Thanks Onebugle.



    islandfire03,

    The two F/T positions are vacant already, the part timers ARE filling in those shifts but are limited to 39 hrs per week, plus all P/T'ers have other jobs so they are no always available. SO....... The Fulltime FF's are still filling some of those positions also. Therefore LOTS of OverTime for them but also they get stuck working 72 straight hours. The P/t'ers are classified as Part Time Relief Fire Fighters, They can only fill in those vacant positions and can't displace F/T staff.

    The funding has been cut for those two FT positions and just moved to pay P/T wages and the OT for FT'ers.

    By moving two P/T'ers up it would cut out most of the OT and also those 72 hr shifts for the present F/t'ers. Although it would not "increase" our present staffing it would "improve" the staffing.
    Ok the situation is a little clearer now.

    My understanding of the SAFER guidance is that you can apply to hire "New" positions , OR apply for funding to rehire laid off FF's to bring back the staffing levels previously. It doesn't appear to me that your situation meets either of these requirements for justification of funding.

    The question I have is, has the town removed the funding for these two vacant positions, or are they just using the funds to pay for additional hours for the PT positions and overtime for the full timers? That would make a difference to the reviewers.

    Not trying to be argumentative with you , just trying to help you make a determination of what the odds for success might be.
    Maybe SLY , Brian or Kurt might have more insight to this type of situation.

  6. #6
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,732

    Default

    Under SAFER; positions lost through attrition are a priority 3. Even though these positions were lost through attrition did they meet the other requirement under SAFER. Were these positions in fact lost due to economic circumstances or for some other reason?

  7. #7
    Forum Member islandfire03's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    2,546

    Talking

    Quote Originally Posted by onebugle View Post
    Under SAFER; positions lost through attrition are a priority 3. Even though these positions were lost through attrition did they meet the other requirement under SAFER. Were these positions in fact lost due to economic circumstances or for some other reason?
    Thats what my line of thinking was Andy. The guidelines aren't real clear in the details of what would qualify. It seems as though they chose not to fill the positions , while at the same time are spending the funds for overtime and Part timers, so did they eliminate/ not fill the positions for budgetary reasons?

  8. #8
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Espyville Pa
    Posts
    27

    Default

    When the positions became available due to those circumstances. The Borough tested and interviewed to replace those two F/T spots. BUT, instead of filling them with two F/T, they decided to hire 6 P/T'ers to fill-in the open shifts. The Borough then just budgeted for P/t and more overtime for F/t and just stopped budgeting for F/t.

    Although the reasoning behind it is budgetary issues, they are paying just as much in OT and part time wages as it would be to just hire the two F/t.

    NOW......I haven't read the narrative for the grant but i do know it says "Replace" and we just recieved the 10 Questions. What we are really hoping for is to just move two P/T up to Full time.

  9. #9
    Forum Member islandfire03's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    2,546

    Talking

    Well depending on how the narrative was written , then you may be able to put those two full time positions under the grant requirements. They will only be funded for the period of performance of the grant & then the town will have to pay the full amount or lose the positions.
    Thats why we were trying to determine the reasoning for the grant in your application.
    It would seem that they are probably paying more in overtime and part time pay than filling the positions would cost.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Multi Part Rescue-Pumper question
    By mohican in forum Apparatus Innovation
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 08-22-2007, 02:47 PM
  2. This is Sort of a Serious, Sort of Not Quite So Serious Question
    By MalahatTwo7 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 06-20-2007, 10:39 PM
  3. SAFER Question
    By Tallyho74 in forum Federal FIRE ACT Grants & Funding
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-03-2007, 02:50 PM
  4. Oral interview coming up
    By smokejmper05 in forum Hiring & Employment Discussion
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 03-27-2007, 02:12 AM
  5. Test-taking Tactics: Evaluating Answer Choices
    By dmfireschool in forum Hiring & Employment Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-27-2007, 03:02 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts